Movie Review: Antiviral

Friday, October 12, 2012

Movie Review: Antiviral

Antiviral
Directed by: Brandon Cronenberg.
Written by: Brandon Cronenberg.
Starring: Caleb Landry Jones (Syd March), Sarah Gadon (Hannah Geist), Malcolm McDowell (Dr. Abendroth), Douglas Smith (Edward Porris), Joe Pingue (Arvid), Nicholas Campbell (Dorian), Salvatore Antonio (Topp), Elitsa Bako (Vera), Milton Barnes (Salesman), Katie Bergin (Candyce).

Having the last name Cronenberg is probably both a blessing and curse for Brandon Cronenberg. Being the son of David Cronenberg, the best director to ever come out of Canada, means that in Canada’s small film industry, doors will more readily open for you than they would for someone else. Yet, the name also carries with it baggage – and more importantly expectations. I don’t think that no matter how made Antiviral that it would a “good” film, but I do know that myself (and others) might not so readily compare it to the work of David Cronenberg had it not been made by his son. Yes, the plot of the movie sounds like something David would have made when he was younger, but the connection would have been more tenuous if someone else had made the film. The result is a movie where you admire the intention and effort much more than the execution. I want to see what Brandon Cronenberg does next, even if I have to ultimately conclude that Antiviral doesn’t achieve what it sets out. It’s a good try though.

The film takes place in the not too distant future, where our culture’s celebrity fixation has grown to an even more unhealthy level than it currently is. In this society, there are companies who can infect you with the same virus your favorite celebrity has – you can suffer from the same cold, the same flu, even the same herpes as the object of your obsession if you want to. In addition, there are places where you can go and buy cloned cell steaks – so you can essentially eat the muscle tissue of a celebrity if you want to. And all of this has come to be perceived as normal.

Syd March (Caleb Landry Jones) works as a salesman selling these viruses to the people who come into his sterile, bright, all white office. He is a quiet, awkward little man, not as easy with chitchat as the other people who work for this large, faceless corporation. But it’s possible it’s because he almost always finds himself sick. Knowing there is a black market for these viruses; Syd injects himself with the latest viruses, goes home, draws his own blood and on a stolen machine, recreates the virus. He cannot get the virus out any other way – and this pays well. All he has to do is be sick most of the time.

One of the company’s biggest “sellers” is Hannah Geist (Sarah Gadon). Whatever she is supposedly famous for is never mentioned – maybe an actress, a singer or someone famous for simply being famous. She has an “exclusive” contract with his company, selling her viruses just to them. Syd is sent to collect the latest of these from her, as she lies sick in her hotel room. He draws her blood, but before getting back to the office, he injects some it into himself – to save some time, and to ensure that he is the one who makes the money on the black market off this virus. The next day on the news he hears disturbing news – Hannah Geist is dead of some strange virus. And now, of course, he has it too, and has to find a way to cure himself – or die.

Depending on your tolerance for this type of story, the above plot description probably either sounds really interesting, or really stupid. To me, I found it interesting – at least reading the outline in the TIFF Program. The film’s obsession certainly falls in line with David Cronenberg’s obsession with body horror movies – where the threat to the protagonist does not come from some exterior threat, but something growing inside them (this is true of many of Cronenberg’s earlier movies from Shivers to Rabid to The Brood to Scanners to The Dead Zone to The Fly, and continues, in more subtle ways, throughout much of his work). I think our celebrity obsessed culture is ripe for mockery, and this type of film should be a fascinating exploration of the subject. Unfortunately, I don’t think Brandon Cronenberg ever truly thought this all out – he came up with an interesting idea, and then does very little with it. Based on his own short film, Broken Tulips, Antiviral feels like a short film stretched beyond all reason into a feature. So we get many repetitive scenes and scene after scene of exposition, since the plot is so needlessly complex the movie has to stop itself every few minutes to explain what the hell is happening. It certainly doesn’t help that in the lead role Caleb Landry Jones is pretty much a zombie – sleep walking through his role, seemingly trying to go for quiet intensity that instead comes across as silly. And the rest of the cast are given such thin roles that there is nothing that can be done with them – the best being Sarah Gadon, who at least is supposed to be a cipher in the film.

Still, Antiviral shows tremendous promise from Cronenberg – much more as a director than as a writer. The movie is full of striking images, that grow more and more disturbing as the movie goes along, culminating in a one of the more disturbing and sickening images of any film this year. I want to see what Brandon Cronenberg does next – where he goes from here. But I also think that he would be better served by taking on a movie that doesn’t bare quite so much resemblance to the movies that his father has already mastered.

DVD Review: The Pruitt-Igoe Myth

DVD Review: The Pruitt-Igoe Myth

The Pruitt-Igoe Myth
Directed by: Chad Freidrichs.
Written by: Chad Freidrichs & Jaime Freidrichs.

The Pruitt-Igoe housing project was built in the 1950s in St. Louis – and was torn down about 20 years later. Because this was a public housing project, Pruitt-Igoe has long been held up as an example as to why this sort of public housing doesn’t work – and a way to demonize all public housing. But Pruitt-Igoe failed for many reasons – as one former resident in the documentary says there is plenty of blame to go around – so to demonize all public housing because of Pruitt-Igoe would be shortsighted and incorrect. This isn’t to say that the Federal government should provide public housing, but only that Pruitt-Igoe should not be a reason why they don’t.

When the Pruitt-Igoe projects were built in 1950s, the city assumed that the population would rise in the coming decades. These high rise apartments were meant to house 12,000 residents, and keep them close to the jobs in the city’s center – good manufacturing jobs among them. Instead what happened was just the opposite – the city’s population plummeted – it lost half its population in the 30 years between 1950 and 1980. Middle class, predominantly white, residents fled to the suburbs, and the jobs followed them. While the Federal government paid for construction of the Pruitt-Igoe buildings, they were supposed to pay for the upkeep out of the rent of the tenants – which never really happened because so many people were unemployed, and couldn’t find a job in St. Louis. The buildings fell quickly into disrepair, which led to the people who did have jobs living there finding someplace else to live, which only increased the problems. People ended up paying nearly 75% of their meager incomes to live in these buildings, which offered worse conditions than other places they could live. And wherever there was poverty, there is crime and vandalism – and soon the Pruitt-Igoe projects were just as bad or worse than the slums that they had replaced.

Chad Fredrichs The Pruitt-Igoe Myth offers a wealth of archival footage of the projects slow decline, as well as suburbia’s rather rapid growth. He finds some great footage of middle class white housewives living in suburbia who claim that they don’t think that the “Negros” should not be oppressed; they just don’t want them in their area. After all, they moved out of the city into the white enclave of suburbia to get away from them in the first place.  He also has some great interviews with some of the former residents of Pruitt-Igoe, whose memories recall the steady decline of the area – some have very fond memories of the place, some have some rather horrid memories.

The documentary is interesting, but I don’t think Fredrichs quite makes his point as strongly as he wants to – that the residents and the fact that Pruitt-Igoe was a public housing project were not to blame for its failings – and that it was more because of poor urban planning, poor maintenance, racism, a shifting economy and suburbia that led to its failures. They all played a role – and this documentary highlights that – but the residents, who Fredrichs never really criticizes in any direct way, played their own role as well. Fredrichs tries to get this across, I think, especially when interviewing one former resident, forever scarred by the murder of his brother in Pruitt-Igoe, but mostly he blames outside factors solely.

Still, The Pruitt-Igoe Myth is a fascinating little documentary. It certainly breaks no new ground with the standard issue talking heads-archival footage format, but the story it tells is interesting – and necessary in many ways. True, I think Fredrichs could have, and should have, been harder on some of the residents who inhabited Pruitt-Igoe – the ones who actively destroyed it (blaming poor maintenance on not replacing broken windows or cleaning up vandalism, etc. ignores the fact that SOMEONE broke those windows, and vandalized the property). In a way though, Fredrichs doesn’t need to blame the residents – that is what everyone else has done for decades now. Fredrichs is showing the larger picture – the other factors that contributed to Pruitt-Igoe failings. And on that level it works - and may well remind viewers of some of the things said in politics today. Afterall, everyone who lived in Pruitt-Igoe would be part of that 47% of Americans Mitt Romney thinks are lazy moochers – and while some residents certainly share in the blame for Pruitt-Igoe’s failing, many were just hard working people trying to live their lives.

Oscar Update: The Foreign Language Submissions

Oscar Update: The Foreign Language Submissions

So apparently 71 films will be vying for the Foreign Language Film Oscar this year – a record number of submissions, which would have been even higher had Iran not acted like children and decided to boycott this year (after winning last year) because of a Youtube video made by a bigot. Anyway, I highlight 15 films that I have heard of, that may well play a role in the final nominees. Of course, they always pick a few films no one has heard of before, and ignore some very high profile ones, so it’s really a crapshoot until the shortlist of 9 or 10 films is announced. For now, these 15 will likely be the most talked about.

1.       Lore – Australia – This has been a festival hit this year, and considering it is about WWII (and specifically children in WWII) it has a VERY good chance at being in play come Oscar time. The new rules, announced a few years ago, that state the movie does not have to be in an official language of the country helps a lot – considering this Australia film is in German.

2.       Amour – Austria – Michael Haneke’s latest masterpiece is almost assured a nomination. It has already become one of the most acclaimed films of the year, and may even score some nominations outside of this category as well. Until something else unseats it, this is your frontrunner.

3.       Our Children – Belgium – A controversial entry in the Un Certain Regard section of Cannes this year, this certainly divided critics – but did come away with some very passionate supporters. This may well be too dark for the Academy, but a few familiar faces in the cast (Tahar Rahim, Niels Arestrup and Emile Deqeune) may help though.

4.       Rebelle – Canada – I always highlight the Canadian film – and hope for the best. This film, about war torn Africa, has been a festival hit – picking up prizes in Berlin and Tribeca – and seems like it may be up the Academy’s alley.

5.       No – Chile – The presence of an actor the Academy knows – in this case Gael Garcia Bernal – never hurts. And this film, from director Pablo Larrain, about an activist trying to come up with ad to defeat Pinochet, has been a festival hit all year. So, this could happen.

6.       Caught in the Web – China – I know nothing of this film, other than it was directed by Chen Kaige – who made the wonderful Farewell, My Concubine, which was nominated for this award years ago. He can be great – but hasn’t been in a while now, so who the hell knows.

7.       A Royal Affair – Denmark – I was mildly surprised when Denmark did not pick Thomas Vinterberg’s The Hunt for its selection – it is right in the Academy wheelhouse. Instead, they went with this highly thought of costume drama, starring The Hunt star Mads Mikkelsen. The Hunt would have been almost assured of a nomination, so I think this one could be as well.

8.       The Intouchables – France – This one has already opened in North America – and did excellent business for a foreign film. Throw in the fact that France is nearly ALWAYS in play, and they overlooked Rust & Bone to put this one in, you know they think they have a nominee here – and they’re most likely right. I guess I DO have to watch this film, that I have been avoiding for months.

9.       Barbara – Germany – Barbara has been a huge hit on the Festival circuit all year, and with baity subject matter - a East German doctor banished to a country hospital – it would be foolish to bet against this one at least finding its way to the shortlist.

10.   Fill the Void –Israel – Israel has found itself in play for this award quite often in recent history, and strong word of mouth coming out of numerous film festivals for this one, make it seem like they may just have another nominee on their hands.

11.   Caesar Must Die – Italy – The highly acclaimed directing brothers the Taviani’s return with this strange sounding film about inmates in a maximum security prison putting on a production of Shakespeare’ Julius Caesar. The winner of the Berlin Festival maybe a return to form for the brothers.

12.   After Lucia – Mexico – The winner of the Un Certain Regard award at Cannes this year, the movie has very timely subject matter – high school bullying – so it could very easily find itself in play.

13.   Beyond the Hills – Romania – If they didn’t nominate the almost universally acclaimed 4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days from Romanian Cristian Mungiu, I find it hard to believe they will nominate his follow-up – which has a much more mixed critical response. Still, this is one of the more talked about entries.

14.   Pieta – South Korea – I hate the films of Kim Ki-Duk, which I mainly find vile or shallow – and in many cases both. Still, he won the top prize at Venice (sure, on a technicality, but he won it) although any movie that apparently features a scene of a man reaching inside his mother’s vagina and screaming “Is this where I came from?” has no shot at a nomination.

15.   The Hypnotist – Sweden – I hated this novel by Lars Kelper, who was billed as the next Steig Larsen, but is nowhere near as good as even James Patterson. Regardless, it has been directed by Lasse Hallstrom, once an Oscar mainstay – and is the Academy’s favorite type of foreign film – that is one that feels like an American film in another language - so who knows?

The Complete List

1.       The Patience Stone – Afghanistan

2.       Pharmakon – Albania

3.       Zabana – Algeria

4.       Clandestine Childhood – Argentina

5.       If Only Everyone – Armenia

6.       Lore – Australia

7.       Amour – Austria

8.       Buta – Azerbaijan

9.       Pleasure Boy Komola – Bangladesh

10.   Our Children – Belgium

11.   Children of Sarajevo – Bosnia & Herzegovina

12.   The Clown – Brazil

13.   Sneakers – Bulgaria

14.   Lost Loves – Cambodia

15.   Rebelle – Canada

16.   No – Chile

17.   Caught in the Web – China

18.   El Cartel de Los Sapos – Columbia

19.   Cannibal Vegetarian – Croatia

20.   In the Shadow of the Horse – Czech Republic

21.   A Royal Affair – Denmark

22.   Check Mate – Dominican Republic

23.   Mushrooming – Estonia

24.   Purge – Finland

25.   The Intouchables – France

26.   Keep Smiling – Georgia

27.   Barbara – Germany

28.   Unfair World – Greece

29.   Inuk – Greenland

30.   Life Without Principle – Hong Kong

31.   Just the Wind – Hungary

32.   The Deep – Iceland

33.   Barfi! – India

34.   The Dancer – Indonesia

35.   Fill the Void –Israel

36.   Caesar Must Die – Italy

37.   Our Homeland – Japan

38.   Myn Bala: Warriors of the Steppe – Kazakhstan

39.   Nairobi Half Life – Kenya

40.   The Empty Home – Kyrgyzstan

41.   Gulf Stream Under the Iceberg – Latvia

42.   Ramin – Lithuania

43.   The Third Half – Macedonia

44.   Bunohan – Malaysia

45.   After Lucia – Mexico

46.   Death for Sale – Morroco

47.   Kauwboy – The Netherlands

48.   Kon Tiki – Norway

49.   When I Saw You – Palestinian Territories

50.   The Bad Intentions – Peru

51.   Bwakaw – The Philippines

52.   80 Million – Poland

53.   Blood of My Blood – Portugal

54.    Beyond the Hills – Romania

55.   White Tiger – Russia

56.   When Day Breaks – Serbia

57.   Already Famous – Singapore

58.   Made in Ashes – Slovakia

59.   A Trip – Slovenia

60.   Little One – South Africa

61.   Pieta – South Korea

62.   Blancanieves – Spain

63.   The Hypnotist – Sweden

64.   Sister – Switzerland

65.   Touch the Light – Taiwan

66.   Headshot – Thailand

67.   Where the Fire Burns – Turkey

68.   Firecrosser – Ukraine

69.   The Delay – Uruguay

70.   Rock, Paper, Scissors – Venezuela

71.   The Scent of Burning Grass - Vietnam

Movie Review: Frankenweenie

Tuesday, October 9, 2012

Movie Review: Frankenweenie

Frankenweenie
Directed by: Tim Burton.
Written by: John August based on the character by Tim Burton.
Starring: Catherine O'Hara (Mrs. Frankenstien / Weird Girl / Gym Teacher), Martin Short (Mr. Frankenstein / Mr. Burgemeister / Nassor), Martin Landau (Mr. Rzykruski), Winona Ryder (Elsa Van Helsing), Charlie Tahan (Victor Frankenstien), Atticus Shaffer (Edgar 'E' Gore), Robert Capron (Bob), Christopher Lee (Movie Dracula), Conchata Ferrell (Bob's Mom), James Hiroyuki Liao (Toshiaki), Tom Kenny (New Holland Townsfolk), Dee Bradley Baker (Persephone van Helsing / Shelly / Were-Rat / Colossus / Mr. Whiskers / Driver), Jeff Bennett (Giant Sea Monkeys), Frank Welker (Sparky Frankenstein).

Perhaps Tim Burton should concentrate on animation from now on. He has been the driving creative force behind three animated films so far – The Nightmare Before Christmas, A Corpse Bride and now Frankenweenie – and the three films are far more consistent in quality than the majority of his career. And animation suits his dark, visual style – which is the highlight of most of films anyway – even better than live action films. Frankenweenie may not quite reach the heights of Nightmare Before Christmas, but it still one of the most enjoyable animated films of the year – and one that feels more personal than much of Burton’s films. It is easy to see Little Victor Frankenstein, the main character of Frankenweenie, as the director himself as a child – obsessed with monster movies, death and science experiments. Frankenweenie feels like an ode to Burton’s own childhood – and it makes this film one of the best Burton has ever directed.

The movie is a feature length version of the Burton’s (live action) short that he made almost 30 years ago at the beginning of his career. In the film, Victor Frankenstein is just a regular suburban kid – lonely because he has no real friends, and spends of all of his time in the attic making ingenious little 3-D monster movies with his toys, and his beloved dog Sparky – who is his only real friend. But when Sparky is tragically killed in an accident, Victor decides to use some of the lessons learned from the strange, new science teacher Mr. Rzykruski about electricity and reanimation to good use. But of course, bringing a dog back from the dead is one thing, keeping a secret is quite another.

The movie has a wonderful visual look – in black and white, which is appropriate given that much of the movie is homage to the monster movies Burton grew up loving. Frankenstein and Bride of Frankenstein are both obvious references, but really only scratches the surface of the movie references that Burton makes in this film. One of the pleasures for movie buffs watching the film will be to spot as many as they can.

And yet, while many of Burton’s films have made references to the movie of the past that he loves, Frankenweenie goes beyond that – and actually crafts a heartfelt story about a boy and his dog. One of the hardest things in childhood is dealing with death – and a pet’s death is harder than most because it often hits children before they know anyone else who has died. Pets offer the kind of unconditional love that people just do not offer – and having that suddenly taken away is truly heartbreaking. Frankenweenie gets that, and tells that story with genuine emotion, that had me on the verge of tears at times – which is rare for a Burton movie, which are generally style over substance affairs.

The style, though, is great. This is one of the better 3-D movies I can remember. One of the reasons is that 3-D generally makes everything darker, and given that the movie is in black and white anyway, it doesn’t negatively affect the movie.  For another, Burton doesn’t really use the 3-D to shoot stuff directly at the audience – he uses it more to add depth than anything else. The character design leaves no doubt who directed the movie. Frankenweenie is a dark, visual delight – but one that goes deeper than most of Burton’s films do. This is one of the best animated films of the year.

Movie Review: Taken 2

Movie Review: Taken 2

Taken 2
Directed by: Olivier Megaton.
Written by: Luc Besson & Robert Mark Kamen.
Starring: Liam Neeson (Bryan Mills), Maggie Grace (Kim), Famke Janssen (Lenore), Rade Serbedzija (Murad Krasniqi), Leland Orser (Sam), Jon Gries (Casey), D.B. Sweeney (Bernie), Luke Grimes (Jamie).

Unlike many, I didn’t think too much of the original Taken. It was an average action movie with a ludicrous plot and subpar acting – aside from Liam Neeson – and spent much of the time wallowing in torture. Director Pierre Morel knew how to stage an action scene though. In short, I found Taken to be a fairly average, forgettable action movie – other than Liam Neeson’s speech about his very specific set of skills, there is nothing that really stands out in the original Taken. But the film, made on the cheap, was a surprise hit, meaning that a sequel was inevitable, if not advisable.

It most likely took four years to get a sequel made because with all the bad guys dead, who would Liam Neeson fight? Would anyone buy the fact that someone else would just randomly kidnap poor little Kim Mills (Maggie Grace) yet again? Eventually, the filmmakers decided on the path of least resistance and went a clichéd with action sequel setup – all those dead people had families. And one of them, Murad Krasniqi (Rabe Serbedzija) is pissed and wants revenge. The sequel picks up just after the last one ended – with Murad standing over his son’s grave, and the graves of the others who Neeson killed, as they get buried – and swearing vengeance.

We then flash back to Los Angeles where Kim is trying to learn how to drive so she can get her license. How much time has passed is not mentioned, nor was I ever sure of just how old Kim was supposed to be. Are we supposed to believe the 29 year old Grace is just 16 or 17? Or that she was just a slow learner when it comes to driving? Is this just weeks after her father saved her, as implied by the funerals that open the movie. If that’s the case, then you would think that considering she was kidnapped to be used as a sex slave, she may need psychological counseling, and not being worrying about driving tests or starting a new relationship with a scruffy boyfriend, who of course Neeson hates. Oh, and Lenore (Famke Janseen), Neeson’s ex-wife is having problems with her new husband, and it looks like a divorce is imminent. That bastard even cancels a trip they had scheduled – so Neeson has a good idea – both Lenore and Kim should accompany him to Istanbul where he has a couple of days of work – and then they can have a vacation. Of course, Murad knows they will be in Istanbul, and has ways of getting them all. His plan is to take all of them, kill Lenore in front of Neeson to make him suffer, sell Kim into the sex slavery that Neeson just saved her from, and then slowly torture him to death. What we don’t see coming is that Kim will be the only one the kidnappers don’t get – and she’ll help her dad escape so he can kick some ass once again.

Taken 2 is even more clichéd and ludicrous than the original movie – one of my favorite moments has Kim whipping grenades around Istanbul, not to hurt or kill anyone, but just so Neeson can figure out where she is (no one seems to care that things keep blowing up). The clichés and outlandish plot could be forgiven if the movie was somewhat entertaining or exciting – and Taken 2 is neither. For one thing, it takes nearly half an hour for anything to actually happen. The first 30 minutes is the most boring beginning of an action movie in recent memory. When the action finally does kick in, new director Olivier Megaton (not his real name) uses the type of rapid fire editing and non-stop camera movement that have become far too prevalent in action movies today. But unlike someone like Paul Greengrass, who is capable of using that style effectively, Megaton (man I feel like an idiot typing that word as someone’s last name) has no clue what’s he doing. I could never tell what the hell was going on in any of the chase, fistfight or gunfight sequences, because the movie never orients itself – never really lets you see what the hell is going on. It’s all sound and fury signifying nothing but sound and fury.

 
I cannot imagine too many people, even fans of the original Taken, really liking Taken 2. I know not everyone cares about logic when it comes to action movies, but I don’t know anyone who thinks action movies should be boring for long chunks of its running time.

Movie Review: Wuthering Heights

Friday, October 5, 2012

Movie Review: Wuthering Heights

Wuthering Heights

Directed by: Andrea Arnold.

Written by: Andrea Arnold & Olivia Hetreed based on the novel by Emily Bronte.

Starring: Kaya Scodelario (Catherine Earnshaw), James Howson (Heathcliff), Lee Shaw (Hindley Earnshaw), Nichola Burley (Isabella Linton), Amy Wren (Frances Earnshaw), Oliver Milburn (Mr. Linton), Steve Evets (Joseph), James Northcote (Edgar Linton), Paul Hilton (Mr. Earnshaw), Shannon Beer (Young Catherine Earnshaw), Solomon Glave (Young Heathcliff).

Emily Bronte’s Wuthering Heights is one the best known novels in the English language, and according to IMDB, this most recent film is the 15^th screen adaptation of it. So, if you’re going to make another adaptation, you damn well better have something new to add. Luckily for audiences, that is precisely what Andrea Arnold brings to this enduring story – something new. This is a rawer, more primal, more animalistic adaptation that I have seen before, and it adds a racial element to the story that works remarkably well.

The movie tells the story completely from Heathcliff’s point of view – and Arnold casts first Solomon Glave and then James Howston – both black – to play the role of the orphan who is taken in by Mr. Earnshaw as one of his own. Growing up, he falls in love with Cathy (first Shannon Beer than Kaya Scodelario), and she with him. But Heathcliff runs afoul of brother Hindley (this time the reason is clearly racial as when Mr. Earnshaw says to Hindley “I thought you would treat him like a brother”, he responds “He’s not my brother, he’s just a nigger”), so when Mr. Earnshaw dies and Hindley becomes master of Wuthering Heights, the family estate, he makes Heathcliff into a servant (in this version, essentially a slave) instead of a member of the family. But despite what happens between them, Heathcliff and Catherine remain in love – the fact they are kept apart destroys them, and everyone around them.

That is the same story that every adaptation of the book tells – and like many of them, this one stops at the half way point of the novel (which is just as well – I never really liked all the stuff about an aging Heathcliff, and the kids from the first half growing up). But this version of Wuthering Heights feels much more animalistic, more primal than the previous versions. Heathcliff is more up front with his animosity than ever before (he uses some decidedly no period language to express himself).  But the relationships are much more physical than before – the beatings Heathcliff takes are more brutal, Cathy literally licking his wounds for him, Hindley and his wife screwing like animals outside. This, and the multiple shots of animals, draws connections between the people and the animals. And this underlines the inherent cruelty at the heart of the story. Wuthering Heights is a story about cruelty, as Hindley is cruel to Heathcliff and to a certain extent so is Cathy, who drives him away. But when Heathcliff returns, now richer than the rest of the people he left behind, he becomes even crueller – especially how he treats poor, dumb Isabella, just to get back at the man who married Cathy. These are all horrible people – perhaps they would not be if society hadn’t kept Heathcliff and Cathy apart.

The performances in the movie are excellent. James Howson and Solomon Glave do an excellent job of making Heathcliff`s anger feel real. He’s more dangerous than in past versions, more vindictive. Glave is mostly silent in his half of the movie, always lurking and listening to what everyone is saying. Just as good is Kaya Scodelario and Shannon Beer as the two versions of Cathy. Beer and Glave have a much more physical connection to each other. Howson and Scodelario have to keep their distance from each other, but their pleasantries are packed with meaning and heartbreak.

Co-written and directed by Andrea Arnold, Wuthering Heights is more proof that she is one of the most interesting young directors working right now. Her debut film, the thriller Red Lights, was great until the conclusion, and her follow-up, Fish Tank, was an excellent depiction of a seduction of a teenager by an older man. In Wuthering Heights, she uses hand held camera work – with a narrower aspect ratio than normal (1:1.37) that makes the film feel more immediate and real. Arnold has done something quite special with her Wuthering Heights – she has made one of the most well-known stories feel new and different.

Movie Review: V/H/S

Movie Review: V/H/S

V/H/S

Diected by: Adam Wingard, David Bruckner, Ti West, Glen McQuaid, Joe Swanberg, Radio Silence.

Written by: Simon Barrett, Matt Bettinelli-Olpin, David Bruckner, Tyler Gillett, Justin Martinez, Glenn McQuaid, Radio Silence, Nicholas Tecosky, Chad Villella, Ti West.

Starring: Calvin Reeder (Gary), Lane Hughes (Brad), Adam Wingard (Rock), Hannah Fierman (Lily), Mike Donlan (Shane), Joe Sykes (Patrick), Drew Sawyer (Clint), Jas Sams (Lisa), Joe Swanberg (Sam), Sophia Takal (Stephanie), Kate Lyn Sheil (The Stalker), Norma C. Quinones (Wendy), Drew Moerlein (Joey), Jason Yachanin (Spider), Helen Rogers (Emily), Daniel Kaufman (James), Chad Villella (Chad), Matt Bettinelli-Olpin (Matt), Tyler Gillett (Tyler), Paul Natonek (Paul).

V/H/S is an good example of two types of films that normally suck. The first is the anthology film, which always seems like a better idea in theory than it is in practice – normally, what happens is you get one great segment surrounded by a bunch of crap that you have to wade through to get to the good one. The second is the found footage horror film – that was popularized by good movies like The Blair Witch Project and Paranormal Activity, but is normally just shaky camera work crap. But V/H/S is an example of why anthologies sometimes work and why found footage horror films can be extremely scary if done right. The film has two excellent shorts, one very good, one passable and only one that is downright awful to go along with  a framing device that grows more tired every time we revisit it. Yet, when the film works, and the first two segments work amazingly well, it scared me more than any other horror film I’ve seen this year.

The framing device for the film, directed by Adam Wingard, is about a group of 20 year assholes, who film themselves doing despicable things and then post them on YouTube. They get a job offer to rob an old house – the only thing the client wants is some old VHS tapes. They have no idea what is on them. They break into the house, find an old dead man in a chair in front of a bank of TVs, and then find the VHS tapes – which they play one after another in mounting horror. The framing device is effective, but grows a little more tiresome each time we revisit it. This really isn’t Wingard's fault, who has less freedom than the other directors since he needs to set up the whole film, but it is effective.

The first real segment is by personal favorite in the film – and the one that scared me the most. Three horny college boys hit the bar, one with a hidden camera in his glasses. They get drunk, and pick up two women, and take them back to a hotel room – and this is when all hell breaks loose. The film is a slow burn before its shocking climax, but it is brutally effective, and the line "I like you" will now never cease to send chills up my spine. Directed by David Bruckner, this segment is brutal, bloody and brilliant.

The second film is by the great Ti West – who with his segment here and his features The House of the Devil and The Innkeepers has established himself as one of the hopes for American horrors future. His segment stars Joe Swanberg and Sophia Takal as a young married couple on their second honeymoon, who are filming their adventures. First they get a strange fortune by one of those fortune telling machines seen in the movie Big. And then things get even creepier when it becomes clear someone is watching them – and films them while they sleep. Another slow burn of a horror film, leading to a truly shocking finale, this segment keeps the intensity of Bruckner’s segment going.

The third segment, directed by Glenn McQuaid, is the one that doesn’t work at all. It has an interesting, if well-worn setup, of a group of college kids heading out for a weekend in the wilderness – where of course, it has been long since rumored to be the hunting grounds of a demented serial killer, which of course, is true. I admire how McQuaid tries to put a new twist on this old as the hills concept, but what he actually puts onscreen is awful, cheesy and just not scary. This is the segment it’s safe to go to the bathroom during without the danger of missing anything.

The fourth segment is directed by Mumblecore mainstay Joe Swanberg, and takes place entirely over Skype (how a Skype conversation ended up on VHS is a question better left unasked). In it, a scared young woman, who just moved into a new apartment, talks to her boyfriend over Skype, and shares her interesting creepy stories of what is happening in her apartment. This segment is more creepy than scary and the ending, which like the others tries to add a twist, really doesn’t work at all. It may just be the best thing Swanberg has ever done – but considering I don’t normally like his films, that may be damning the film with faint praise.

The final segment is by a group who calls themselves Radio Silence, and is about a group of college kids who head out to a Halloween party – and gets in over their heads. This segment seems to have been the critic’s favorite when the film debuted at Sundance, and it’s easy to see why – out of all the segments, it is the one that keeps you guessing the most from one scene to the next. You’re never quite sure what is going to be around the next corner, what is going to happen next. And while I prefer Bruckner’s sequence – and maybe even Wests, it is creepy and scary in the extreme.

V/H/S is a good horror film – that has some great moments and perhaps proof that horror anthologies work better than most other genres. Perhaps that’s because the best part of horror films is usually the setup, but often has to pad its mid-section with needless bloodletting to get up to feature length. Here, by the time each segment is done with its setup, it’s already moved directly into its climax, so as not to overstay its welcome. Unfortunately, after the first two segments, the third one is a massive disappointment, and the film never quite regains its momentum – even though the Radio Silence directed finale comes close. I know a lot of people hate the found footage genre, with its constant shaky camera work – I often do as well. But perhaps I’m just getting used to it – more and more films are using the concept, and sometimes it works – as it does in the best segments here. V/H/S cannot sustain its effectiveness throughout the whole film – but there are moments that make it worthwhile.